The good and bad come together!

I posted an article about a HUGE victory for gay rights in California earlier. Now, I am outraged to bring another pending issue to my California friends. This article is from the Associated Press. Although I cannot be there to fight this with everything that I am I will be there in spirit with you all who do decide to join the fight for equality. Here is the article I am talking about that lists TWO amendments to the state constitution that are being proposed to go to the ballot as early as June 2006.

Domestic Partner Rights Threatened By Gay Marriage Ban Measure

SACRAMENTO -- California's attorney general on Monday released a summary of a proposed constitutional amendment that highlights how the measure would strip same-sex couples of most domestic partner rights while also banning gay marriage.

The preparation of an official circulating title and language for the amendment means opponents of same-sex marriage may now begin gathering the 598,105 signatures they need to qualify the measure for the June 2006 ballot.

But the amendment's official sponsors -- Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, former Assemblyman Larry Bowler and Sacramento activist Ed Hernandez -- said Monday that they plan to challenge Attorney General Bill Lockyer's proposed summary in court, calling it prejudicial and erroneous.

"True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires," Thomasson said.

Thomasson took exception in particular to Lockyer's focusing on what the amendment would take away from registered domestic partners instead of what it would do to safeguard marriage in the status quo.

"Lockyer completely ignores the chief points, ... the whole issue is the protection of marriage," the group behind the initiative, VoteYesMarriage.com, said in a statement.

From top to bottom, the Democratic attorney general's 100-word analysis makes it clear that if the amendment passed, it would limit a lot more than marriage to unions between a man and a woman. While sponsors submitted a working title of "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative," for instance, the attorney general has renamed it, "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights."

The summary that would appear at the top of the petitions that will be circulated for signatures similarly calls attention to how the amendment would reverse the six-year course the state Legislature has been on in extending significant spousal rights to same-sex couples.

While noting that the amendment would "provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California," it goes on to state that the measure "voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations" in areas ranging from inheritance and adoption to insurance benefits and hospital visitation."

"The attorney general's responsibility is to accurately describe what the measure does," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer. "It's not up to us to wage the political campaign the proponents or opponents want to wage, just to tell the voters the truth."

The stripped-down language could prove a liability for the amendment's proponents as they seek to qualify it for the ballot and win voter approval.

Although California voters approved a ballot initiative five years ago limiting marriage to a man and a woman, since then the state Legislature has granted gay and elderly couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the rights and responsibilities of married spouses. Polls have shown most voters support extending the rights of marriage, if not the institution itself, to same-sex couples.

"California voters, even though they are relatively liberal, probably do not support gay marriage," said Elizabeth Garrett, a University of Southern California law professor. "But if it's very clear to voters it is not just a gay marriage amendment than it is less likely to pass. Opponents will capitalize on that and it gives them a chance to characterize this as an extreme initiative out of the California mainstream."

Gay rights advocates nonetheless expect the amendment to make it to ballot, along with gay marriage bans in Alabama, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Virginia, South Dakota and Tennessee, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Voters in Texas will render a decision on an amendment outlawing gay marriage this year.

"This proposal (in California) would strip away more rights from more families than any other proposal we have seen in any other state," said Seth Kilbourn, vice president of HRC's Marriage Project. "It would actually permanently ban the California Legislature, the courts and the governor's office from providing any legal protections to legally recognized domestic partners."

Meanwhile, a group that includes the widow of the late Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight, has submitted a competing amendment that a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com campaign said would go even further by preventing the state government from recognizing same-sex unions in any way. Knight was the sponsor of Proposition 22, the 2000 ballot initiative that prevented the state from recognizing same-sex unions performed elsewhere.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, said his clients felt compelled to put forth a second gay marriage amendment because they think the first leaves room for lawmakers to confer legal and economic rights to same-sex couples as long as they aren't already reserved for marriage.

The attorney general's office was expected to release a summary of that amendment this week.

Re: The good and bad come together!

Gay rights advocates nonetheless expect the amendment to make it to ballot, along with gay marriage bans in Alabama, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Virginia, South Dakota and Tennessee, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Voters in Texas will render a decision on an amendment outlawing gay marriage this year.

You have to be a proud California resident when we can say ...... FINALLY!!! We are following the lead of our brothers and sisters in Alabama, South Carolina and South Dakota!

Re: The good and bad come together!

I love it when people say gay marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage. As if divorce isn't a bigger threat to "traditional" marriage. Why is a straight couple that is breaking apart their family unit okay, when two same-sex people who love each other are not? Can that be explained to me? Let's fight divorce first if you really believe "the sanctity of the family unit."

Re: The good and bad come together!

I was just talking to a dear friend of mine and it dawned on me....The only thing that may be a "threat" to traditional marriage may be that we(meaning homosexuals) would get it right and put these so-called "family" groups to shame!

Re: The good and bad come together!

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

I was just talking to a dear friend of mine and it dawned on me....The only thing that may be a "threat" to traditional marriage may be that we(meaning homosexuals) would get it right and put these so-called "family" groups to shame!

I wholeheartedly believe that that would be the case!

And One of a Kind took my observation. But seriously, since when is California ever on the same side of the list as any one of the other states mentioned. Good god, we're supposed to be the open accepting Wild West (not to be confused with the movie starring WIll Smith and a giant freaking spider)! I swear, I find it so frustrating that so many people feel the need to make a law against something that does not even affect them or hurt anyone else in any way shape or form! And these are, for the most part Republicans (I realize that Dems are giant wusses on this issue, but I really do beleive that most of them could at the very least, not care less, so I don't include them) who then turn around and say that the government is too big and taking away the freedoms of average people! HYPOCRITES!!!!!

The King is back and he's ready to kick some tail. Do not mess with a mouse in black.

Re: The good and bad come together!

Originally Posted by Small Panda After All

And these are, for the most part Republicans (I realize that Dems are giant wusses on this issue, but I really do beleive that most of them could at the very least, not care less, so I don't include them) who then turn around and say that the government is too big and taking away the freedoms of average people! HYPOCRITES!!!!!

Re: The good and bad come together!

Well, I am a Rebublican, so I will stand up and say that not all of us want to stomp out gay rights! I am passionatly in support of them and I will stand up and use my voice and my vote whenever I can.

There is that saying, its long, but it ends with "they came to take me away and no one was left to stand up for me" It is the job of all of us to speak out when basic rights are being taken away, regardless or whether or not we are directly affected. Those who would take away the rights of one will take away the rights of all if they think they can get away with it.

Re: The good and bad come together!

Re: The good and bad come together!

I'll have to agree with what's being said. I've thought for a long time that gays and lesbians can't be any worse for marriage than straight people are.

Living in AZ is pretty scary when it comes to gay rights. We have some legislators who always vote pro-gay, but the religious/Republican hold on the state is pretty strong. And AZ is big with the Mormons, you know. And they know how to do marriage right, don't you think?

On a side note, I recently came out to the entire teaching staff at my school. I'm the music teacher at an elementary school. Coming out is, as we all know, a process and not an event. Several people at the school already knew I was gay, and several of them have even met Garry. But coming out to the entire staff was one of the scariest things I've ever had to do, and I'm just hoping and praying that I don't experience any negative repercussions from it. We don't really have any protections in AZ.

Re: The good and bad come together!

I second Dramaqueen's comments. I, too, am a Republican, and a happily married heterosexual - but I just don't see why two loving, consenting adults have to be treated as second-class citizens. I've seen gay couples have longer committed relationships than most hetero couples!

Re: The good and bad come together!

wait.. is this guy inseign.. I usually dont speek on this subject.. but taking away some rights.... those mentioned in the article.. (cannot finnish reading it..) should be allowed.. even if mariage is changed.. there should be comunity unions or something similar... everyone... removing domestic partner rights is wrong.... keep those rights...

Re: The good and bad come together!

Vermont had it right- they stated the purpose of marriage was to protect assets and give a stable atmosphere for raising children. Or something to that effect.

Vermont also has a civil union arrangment of some kind, based on that statement. It could not be proved that gay couples were substantially different from heterosexual couples.

Brittney Spears getting married and divorced (annulled?) in a weekend is a larger threat to marriage than a loving gay couple. Bah. I've never understood why it's such a problem to let same-sex couple get married. Let 'em.

Yes, let's fight divorce first. Let's make sure that when we make a legal marriage, that we mean it. That we intend to work it out, not just get divorced when we find out our partner has feet of clay, just like everybody else.

The only thing that seems to make any sense at all in this fight is the idea that those who hate us the most *are* us, just in denial. There was some study done that proved that. I don't have references, I just read about it in the Advocate or some such magazine. To allow gay folks to marry would point out their failure to live authentic lives.

Thank you for speaking up, and letting us know there are Republicans who don't behave in knee-jerk fashion. I think a lot of the more vocal groups do give that impression- that every Rep is in lock-step, that everybody agrees, and that you are all as far to the right as our good president. It's encouraging to know that is not the case.